Every time I have to estimate time for a project (or review someone else's estimate), time is allotted for testing/bug fixing that will be done between the alpha and production releases. I know very well that estimating so far into the future regarding a problem-set of unknown size is not a good recipe for a successful estimate. However for a variety of reasons, a defined number of hours invariably gets assigned at the outset to this segment of work. And the farther off this initial estimate is from the real, final value, the more grief those involved with the debugging will have to take later on when they go "over" the estimate.

So my question is: what is the best strategy you have seen with regards to making estimates like this? A flat percentage of the overall dev estimate? Set number of hours (with the expectation that it will go up)? Something else?

Something else to consider: how would you answer this differently if the client is responsible for testing (as opposed to internal QA) and you have to assign an amount of time for responding to the bugs that they may or may not find (so you need to figure out time estimates for bug fixing but not for testing)

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

5 Answers
5

It really depends on a lot of factors. To mention but a few: the development methodology you are using, the amount of testing resource you have, the number of developers available at this stage in the project (many project managers will move people onto something new at the end).

As Rob Rolnick says 1:1 is a good rule of thumb- however in cases where a specification is bad the client may push for "bugs" which are actually badly specified features. I was recently involved in a project which used many releases but more time was spent on bug fixing than actual development due to the terrible specification.

Ensure a good specification/design and your testing/bug fixing time will be reduced because it will be easier for testers to see what and how to test and any clients will have less lee-way to push for extra features.

Maybe I just write buggy code, but I like having a 1:1 ratio between devs and tests. I don't wait until alpha to test, but rather do it throughout the whole project. The logic? Depending on your release schedule, there could be a good deal of time between when development starts and when your alpha, beta, and ship dates are. Furthermore, the earlier you catch bugs, the easier (and cheaper) they are to fix.

A good tester, who find bugs soon after each check-in, is invaluable. (Or, better yet, before a check-in from a PR or DPK) Simply put, I am still extremely familiar with my code, so most bug fixes become super simple. With this approach, I tend to leave roughly 15% of my dev time to bug fixing. At least when I do estimates. So in a 16 week run I'd leave around 2-3 weeks.

Only a good amount of accumulated statistics from previous projects can help you to give precise estimates. If you have a well defined set of requirements, you can make a rough calculation of how many use cases you have. As I said you need to have some statistics for your team. You need to know average bugs-per-loc number to estimate total bugs count. If you don't have such numbers for your team, you can use industry average numbers. After you have estimated LOC (number of use cases * NLOC) and average bugs-per-lines, you can give more or less accurate estimation on time required to release project.

From my practical experience, time spent on bug-fixing is equal to or more (in 99% cases :) ) than time spent on original implementation.

Use a language with Design-by-Contract or "Code-contracts" (preconditions, check assertions, post-conditions, class-invariants, etc) to get "testing" as close to your classes and class features (methods and properties) as possible. Then use TDD to test your code with its contracts.

Use as much self-built code-generation as you possibly can. Generated code is proven, predictable, easier to debug, and easier/faster to fix than all-hand-coded code. Why write what you can generate? However, do not use OPG (other-peoples-generators)! Code YOU generate is code you control and know.

You can expect to spend an inverting ratio over the course of your project--that is--you will write lots of hand-code and contracts in the start (1:1) of your project. As you see patterns, teach a code generator YOU WRITE to generate the code for you and reuse it. The more you generate, the less you design, write, debug, and test. By the end of the project, you will find that your equation has inverted: You're writing less of your core-code, and your focus shifts to your "leaf-code" (last-mile) or specialized (vs generalized and generated) code.

Finally--get a code analyzer. A good, automated code analysis rule system and engine will save you oodles of time finding "stupid-bugs" because there are well-known gotchas in how people write code in particular languages. In Eiffel, we now have Eiffel Inspector, where we not only use the 90+ rules coming with it, but are learning to write our own rules for our own discovered "gotchas". Such analyzers not only save you in terms of bugs, but enhance your design--even GREEN programmers "get it" rather quickly and stop making rookie mistakes earlier and learn faster!

The rule of thumb for rewriting existing systems is this: "If it took 10 years to write, it will take 10 years to re-write." In our case, using Eiffel, Design-by-Contract, Code Analysis, and Code Generation, we have re-written a 14 year system in 4 years and will fully deliver in 4 1/2. The new system is about 4x to 5x more complex than the old system, so this is saying a lot!